Short Solo

My immediate family never ritualized or discussed religion. The two exceptions from my childhood were attending two days of Sunday school—after my mom enrolled me at a local Baptist church—and spending a week at a Bible camp in Alberta as a pre-teen while visiting family who were religious.  I went to one service and a BBQ, as an adult, to show respect and admiration for the pastor who is a close friend.   

I didn’t enjoy Sunday school, I felt out of place. I remember sitting in a circle, listening to other kids recite Bible verses from memory, while I barely understood what most of the words even meant. Camp was a different experience. I had a lot of fun swimming, hiking, and joking around with the other kids, and I got to know one of my cousins much better. But much like Sunday school, I couldn’t connect with the religious parts—especially the daily game where a camp leader would recite a Bible verse and award points to whoever could name the book and chapter the fastest.

Both experiences felt distant from real meaning or relevance in real life—except, perhaps, for the emphasis on memorization. In that sense, they mirrored the way our education system often rewards those who can memorize best.  

I’ll admit that I accepted Jesus as my savior toward the end of camp—mostly because that’s what all the cool kids were doing, and it meant I got extra ice cream that night to celebrate. My maternal grandma gave me a new Bible afterward, and I felt good about it because she was proud of me. I haven’t opened it since.

Does this mean I have no principles or moral compass?

Society’s Moral Compass

Freedom of religion—and freedom from religion—is a basic human right that everyone should be able to experience. Some religious individuals argue that religion is essential for shaping ethical people with a strong moral compass.  Many say other religions cause problems. From that belief, they conclude that their own religion should play a larger role in public institutions, often blaming secularism or {insert other religion/belief system} for many of society’s problems.

This idea is nonsense. Heathens (like me), Pagans, and followers of many of the world’s major religions all share a common ethical principle: treat others the way you’d want to be treated. Shift a few words or swap in a different cultural reference, and you’ll almost always land on some version of the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule whether you’re an atheist, agnostic or from any of the major religions is being threatened globally (a laughable and privileged comment to the eyes of individuals across the globe who have experienced that for years).  This is terrifying for anyone wanting peace and security for their family.

Charlie Kirk

The assassination of Kirk, one of the most influential leaders among young American evangelicals in decades, understandably set off a firestorm. The anger from the right stems from the fact that he was seen as a “family values” conservative who embodied the MAGA movement’s aspirations—someone they believed could one day become president. To them, he is now a martyr, a symbol of everything they feel is under attack in a diverse America.

Anger from many others, however, comes from a belief that Kirk was a monster—someone who espoused views steeped in misogyny, racism, and even genocide. Some say he got what he deserved.

I strongly disagree on principle.  I live life by the Golden Rule (for reasons of preserving the sanctity of life, empathy and self-preservation).

A functioning democracy, especially one that claims to be open and free, must include speech that makes us uncomfortable—even speech we interpret as hateful. People should not be murdered for what they say, no matter how abhorrent their views may be.

To be clear, this is not an endorsement of Kirk or his ideology. I detest his views. But if I don’t stand firmly against his murder, then I’m implying that speech which upsets me can carry a death sentence. And in today’s political climate, that logic puts everyone at risk. If I show up to my Member of Parliament’s office to protest his support for Israel, does that mean a Zionist has the right to shoot me? This is how the cycle begins—and it doesn’t end until people are exhausted from living under the constant threat of death (a major reason for the post WW2 order).

Ironically, Kirk’s assassination may result in a crackdown on exactly the kind of speech I consider progressive. It’s already fueling calls to outlaw left-wing organizations, infiltrate peaceful protests, and even justify violence against liberals. Kirk’s murder is the worst thing to happen to me and my own self-interest.

Ultimately, if Charlie Kirk’s assassination is considered justified simply because someone believed he was evil, then so is mine—because someone might believe I am too.

Diversity of The Golden Rule:

Christianity:  In everything, do to others as you would have them do unto you; for this is the law of the prophets (Matthew 7:12)

Judaism:  That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest in its interpretation (Talmud, Shabbat 31a)

Islam: None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself (40 Hadith 13).

Hinduism:  One should never do to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. (Brihaspati 13.113.8)

Buddhism:  Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful (Udanavarga 5:18)

Wicca:  Ever mind the rule of three.  Three times your acts return to thee.  This lesson well, thou must learn.  Thou only gets what thee dost earn.